As long as we have a wealthy, Information Age superpower with a need for unskilled labor next to an impoverished, corrupt, mismanaged Third World nation, we are going to have immigration from the latter to the former. And if you think it's bad now, wait until the production at Canterell declines for another couple years and Mexico has to import oil. Remember how lousy the U.S. economy was in the Seventies? That was caused in large part by U.S. oil production peaking and us suddenly having to import more oil, worsening the balance of trade.

We need to pressure Mexico to reform and improve its economy even as we build our border fence and clamp down on illegal immigrants...understanding there is no overnight cure for this. If we deport a couple million illegal immigrants, that's a couple million jobs that are going to go unfilled, creating an economic imbalance that is simply going to spur...you guessed it...more illegal immigration. Sure, some of those jobs would be filled by Americans...but not many. What would happen is a few jobs would be taken by Americans, and wages would go up.

Rising wages sounds like a good thing. Economics is funny about that sort of thing...there's always at least a catch, and usually more than one. Higher wages for unskilled labor would drive up the cost of producing goods and services, leading to higher prices for everything from cheeseburgers to a month's rent. Higher wages would also increase the incentive for illegal immigration. And, over the long run, higher wages for unskilled labor encourages firms to make do with fewer employees, reducing employment over time.

Too many amendments to the original bill, which not only clouded the original intent of the bill, but also tried to tie it to spending and earmarks to get it passed, which is simply unacceptable.

Also, the pressure of the American People. Over 75% did not support this bill,for a multitude of reasons. I know here in Virginia that the Offices of Senators Warner and Webb had to shut down their voicemail because of the overwhelming amount of calls from irate constituents. Amazingly enough, both of them voted against it, which is the way it should work when you are an elected official.

People who jump out and say it's racist are ignorant fools. Sure if it targets a specific group of illegal immigrants (such as we're going to crack down on people from Mexico but not from anywhere else) then it's racist.

I see where you're coming from. If I proposed a bill to crack down on credit card theft, and someone argued "But most credit card thefts are committed by (nationality), that's racist!" I'd have no option but to deliver a swift smack upside the head.

In my humble opinion there are multiple issues at hand, not just immigration.

If they couldn't make money here they wouldn't bother, so that's one head of the hydra. The meat-packing industry would take a major hit, as would the strawberry industry, because those two industries in particular trade in the lives of people who are disposable, one by risking injuries and one by displacing the financial burden.

Americans are spoiled. We think we should get what we want, when we want it, and cheaply, damn the consequences. Every day we make choices that support various industries with a folding vote called money. If we paid the "real" cost of things like strawberries out of season and processed meat, it would be a sobering experience. Who's willing to say that they'll pay more for something they want, especially if they consider it a necessity? Not very many people I've met. Every time you go to the grocery store and buy food that is processed and/or imported, you make a statement by voting with your money. Give that some thought... it can be equally sobering.

I agree that third world countries offer living conditions that we find abhorrent. How about if we actually try to help them learn to feed themselves instead of throw food at them? How about if we actually stop to think about the impact of all of the chemical cleaners we buy at the grocery store to spare us a little effort? Call me cynical, but I suspect there'd be a HUGE uprising if someone said NO to the chemicals that haven't been tested for long term effects, not to mention someone actually insisting that a product's lifecycle analysis be included on its label. Maybe that's tangential, but not to my way of thinking.

It's been my experience that whenever I open my big mouth about this it ends up with people avoiding direct eye contact and thinking I'm a bit 'flicted, but so be it

In my humble opinion there are multiple issues at hand, not just immigration.

1If they couldn't make money here they wouldn't bother, so that's one head of the hydra. The meat-packing industry would take a major hit, as would the strawberry industry, because those two industries in particular trade in the lives of people who are disposable, one by risking injuries and one by displacing the financial burden.

2Americans are spoiled. We think we should get what we want, when we want it, and cheaply, damn the consequences. Every day we make choices that support various industries with a folding vote called money. If we paid the "real" cost of things like strawberries out of season and processed meat, it would be a sobering experience. Who's willing to say that they'll pay more for something they want, especially if they consider it a necessity? Not very many people I've met. Every time you go to the grocery store and buy food that is processed and/or imported, you make a statement by voting with your money. Give that some thought... it can be equally sobering.

3I agree that third world countries offer living conditions that we find abhorrent. How about if we actually try to help them learn to feed themselves instead of throw food at them? How about if we actually stop to think about the impact of all of the chemical cleaners we buy at the grocery store to spare us a little effort? Call me cynical, but I suspect there'd be a HUGE uprising if someone said NO to the chemicals that haven't been tested for long term effects, not to mention someone actually insisting that a product's lifecycle analysis be included on its label. Maybe that's tangential, but not to my way of thinking.

It's been my experience that whenever I open my big mouth about this it ends up with people avoiding direct eye contact and thinking I'm a bit 'flicted, but so be it

1) I agree with the first part. They are here to make money. The low wages amny get are a large payraise by their native country's standards. I disagree on the later part. The industries you mentioned would take a hit, but only for a short time before they found some way to make/harvest/cut and pack the product they offer. That was said of the tomatoe growers. That they needed the laborers to pick the crop. Yet when push came to shove, a mechanical way was devised and used to pick tomatoes. Human ingenutiy will provide, after all. nesseccity is the mother of invention.

2) Spoiled? Probalby, and very prosperous. We have gotten to a point that food and goods are cheap and plentiful. It's up to the buyer to decide what he or she wants. It's not like we are being forced to buy the goods. There are other options for those that want them.

3) I'm for helping them feed themselves. A problem though is the governments are often corrupt and much of the money and aid given vanishes. The chemical cleaners you mention.. Most people do not care, just that is is affordable. The companies that produce them are studying the effect the cleaners have on the enviroment all the time and constantly developing new and better brands. That are often more enviromentally friendly and safer for the user. You want long term studies? How long term are you looking at? 5 years? 13? 20? How about 50?

1) I agree with the first part. They are here to make money. The low wages amny get are a large payraise by their native country's standards. I disagree on the later part. The industries you mentioned would take a hit, but only for a short time before they found some way to make/harvest/cut and pack the product they offer. That was said of the tomatoe growers. That they needed the laborers to pick the crop. Yet when push came to shove, a mechanical way was devised and used to pick tomatoes. Human ingenutiy will provide, after all. nesseccity is the mother of invention.

Agreed. The trick is in what we see as a 'necessity'. I wasn't implying that meat packing or strawberries are reasons not to enforce illegal immigration law.

Quote from: Zakharra

2) Spoiled? Probalby, and very prosperous. We have gotten to a point that food and goods are cheap and plentiful. It's up to the buyer to decide what he or she wants. It's not like we are being forced to buy the goods. There are other options for those that want them.

Foods and goods are cheap if you only look at it from an immediate gratification standpoint. In the long run, soil sterilization is very expensive, especially when runoff and pollution are figured into the equation.

Quote from: Zakharra

3) I'm for helping them feed themselves. A problem though is the governments are often corrupt and much of the money and aid given vanishes.

Very true... it's not a simple problem, but teaching people to grow crops that will prosper in their climate is not something that will build a dictator a mansion if it's stolen, while money will.

Quote from: Zakharra

The chemical cleaners you mention.. Most people do not care, just that is is affordable. The companies that produce them are studying the effect the cleaners have on the enviroment all the time and constantly developing new and better brands. That are often more enviromentally friendly and safer for the user. You want long term studies? How long term are you looking at? 5 years? 13? 20? How about 50?

I agree with the first sentence wholeheartedly, but the second is in doubt. Why would they research long term effects of something that makes them so much money? The EU announced a plan to study chemicals that were commonly used and there was quite an outcry. In my opinion the force driving improved ecological footprints is consumer based, on what facts are you basing your claim that they are often more environmentally friendly and safer for the user?

I'm going to assume that you don't mean to mock me for wanting to know the longterm affects of the products I use, because that wouldn't be very civil, now would it?

I agree with the first sentence wholeheartedly, but the second is in doubt. Why would they research long term effects of something that makes them so much money? The EU announced a plan to study chemicals that were commonly used and there was quite an outcry. In my opinion the force driving improved ecological footprints is consumer based, on what facts are you basing your claim that they are often more environmentally friendly and safer for the user?

I'm going to assume that you don't mean to mock me for wanting to know the longterm affects of the products I use, because that wouldn't be very civil, now would it?

What I mean is the formulaes that are used are constantly being reformulated to be more effective and less polluting. Laundry detergent is different that what was used 10 years ago. Soaps and some cleansers are easier on the hands and enviroment and more easily degraded. Some cleansers are hard and will likely to remain so. Industrial cleansers for example.

They have a very goood reason to research for improved products. The US legal system and trial laywers. We are a sue happy society and will sue at the drop of a hat. So it is in their best interests to make better products.

I am not mocking you. I was just wanting to know how long of a time should long term studies be done before a product is rated as safe for cumsumer production? Companies and the FDA are always getting hammered for not releasing products and drugs soon enough, yet they get blasted when something slips by the cracks that did not show up in testing. A no win situation.

They don't get hammered by me... what disgusts me is the fact that profit margins lead to the release of chemicals and drugs that have not been thoroughly vetted and there's such a malaise about that fact.

Maybe not by you, yet they are hammered by groups and politicians because things to get found when public sales happen. sometimes some of the effects aren't detected until there are millions of people who take the drug. When there is a 1 in 500,000 chance of getting a certain side effect. it's very likely that it would have been missed in the testing phase. Unles the human trials are large and decades in length, things will be missed.

Of course, that goes without saying, but that is NOT an excuse to forgo testing all together, is it? I'm not referring to situations like that, where testing took place but missed something. What I'm saying is that the testing should be uniform and consistent, and in the case of chemicals it should take place with EVERY chemical that is sold, bar none. Will it be expensive? Yes, probably, but how on earth is that a good enough reason not to do it?!

Well ideally the government could enforce its own immigration laws without the stigma of racism, though that is simply not the case. The media is responsible, in large part, for people's view of Latin Americans as illegal immigrants. Nightly a viewer can watch people crossing that border with a newscaster reading off that Latin Americans are the fastest growing minority. This then prompts severe action which does target those immigrants specifically. A great deal of the border patrol targets only "Mexicans" entering this country, yet nobody patrols the Canadian border at all unless they fear some sort of criminal escape. Anytime the language debate emerges, Spanish tends to be the hotly contested language and more often than not Latin Americans are featured on most news stories regarding illegal immigration.

The problem is most illegal immigrants are people who have overstayed their VISAs. Whether student, worker, or otherwise the most abundant population of immigrants are from Europe and Asia. This of course makes sense as they are the areas most applying for permission to work and become students at American universities. Also crimes committed by these illegal immigrants are not broadcasted, but tend to be kept quiet. An example that comes to mind was prompted by an advocate for Latin American Immigration when she said that a German illegal immigrant stole a car, was driving recklessly on the highway, killed someone and the event was not brought into the debate. Those are not the illegals making news, but rather the Mexican farm worker or the construction worker who makes the news.

Demanding that laws be enforced is not inherently racist, but care needs to be shown when examining why that law was brought into effect and how well is that law being enforced over the spectrum. Even among the Latin American group, dark skinned immigrants are harrassed more (whether illegal or not) and deported more often.

I really don't think that you can classify what the media is doing as racist. It's simply a common misunderstanding of language that a lot of people call Latin Americans just Mexicans. A lot of people just don't realize the difference between the words "hispanic" and "mexican". Furthermore, why shouldn't the Mexicans who are being smuggled in be targeted? I mean it's not like there's an imminent problem of Canadians fleeing in from the Northern border, and there's more Mexicans coming in than from any other Latin American countries simply because they are on our Southern border. And it's far more people who are directly coming in as aliens than as people who have been overstaying their visas.

I, as someone who legally emigrated to America from England and gained my US citizenship, believe that we are not being nearly as aggressive about it as we should. Bush has not gone far enough to call for the enforcement that should be. I think that these problems of harassment are coming about because we are not being strict enough about enforcing this law. While the short term effects of having many illegal immigrants working at cheap salaries can be a boost to the economy, the long term effects could be devastating; the majority of these immigrants are sending the majority of the capital that they make out of the country to their families, and any economist knows by mercantilist principles that that's bad for the country. We could be on the way to another depression, and the fed might not ever be able to pay off the massive debt.

I doubt that the meat packing industry lobbyists would take any further urging toward enforcing even the existing laws lying down, that industry would literally collapse if they couldn't employ illegal immigrants. Sadly, I suspect that MANY Americans would be serious perturbed at having to pay the real cost of processed meat, let alone the other industries that rely on illegal labor (such as strawberries). Forsaking ethics for a lower price has a very high price at some point in the future, much like outsourcing. It's cheaper short-term, but when an industry stops supporting its community of workers it becomes a pretty big drag on the economy.

I think I would rather pay a little more for my meat and strawberries if it came down to it. With cheaper labor, there also comes cheaper and lower standards in the work. There's been several spreads of diseases such as Ecoli in different meats and vegetables over the past few years and recalls are constantly being made on such products. Now I'm not pinning this down on anyone, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was due to lower sanitary standards of a cheaper workforce. If companies had to start legally paying workers higher wages for jobs, costs of prices might be a little more, but people would have more money to spend from higher salaries. Now this might weigh down a little on the middle upper and upper classes at first, but I believe that the economic effects would be beneficial overall in the long run.